pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Bill Advances to Stop EPA from Regulating Your Ammunition
#1
Quote:Bill Advances to Stop EPA from Regulating Your Ammunition--Contact Your U.S. Senators in Support of S. 3525, the "Sportsmen's Act of 2012"

Posted on November 16, 2012


When Congress reconvened this week, one of the first items the U.S. Senate voted on was S. 3525, "The Sportsmen's Act of 2012."

As we reported last week, S. 3525 is an essential piece of legislation focused on the expansion and enhancement of hunting, recreational fishing and shooting on federal public land.

But it's more than that.

Of critical importance is the fact that, in addition to promoting land access, S. 3525 would amend the "Toxic Substances Control Act" to prevent this and future administrations from using the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate the right of hunters, shooters and anglers to use traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.

The bill would amend the law to clarify that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate shot, bullets or sport fishing equipment.

The bill also allows for the importation of polar bears legally taken from approved populations in Canada before the 2008 ban.

Last week, a motion to proceed to S. 3525 passed by a vote of 84 to 7. This week, Senators voted 84-12 to advance S. 3525.

The bill now awaits a vote on final passage, which is scheduled for Monday, November 26.

Please act now to secure support for this critically important bill that would prevent the EPA from regulating your ammunition!

Please contact your U.S. Senators TODAY and ask them to support S. 3525.

You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators by using the "Write your Representatives" tool at http://www.NRAILA.org. You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federa...-2012.aspx
It's the "BILL OF RIGHTS" not the bill of "needs"
Reply
#2
The EPA is already banned from regulating lead. That's why the petition to get them to ban lead ammo was pointless. They've never been allowed to.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply
#3
I'm on the fence about this legislation.

First, the EPA isn't currently authorized to restrict the lead in ammunition.

[tinfoilhat]Also, from [url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3525/text[/url]:
Quote:(B) INCLUSIONS- The term ‘fish habitat conservation project’ includes--

(i) the provision of technical assistance to a State, Indian tribe, or local community by the National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office or any other agency to facilitate the development of strategies and priorities for the conservation of aquatic habitats; or

(ii) the obtaining of a real property interest in land or water, including water rights, in accordance with terms and conditions that ensure that the real property will be administered for the long-term conservation of--

(I) the land or water; and

(II) the fish dependent on the land or water.

...

(12) REAL PROPERTY INTEREST- The term ‘real property interest’ means an ownership interest in--

(A) land;

(B) water (including water rights); or

© a building or object that is permanently affixed to land.

I can easily see this being miss-used to seize anyone's land the .gov wants. I mean, all land affects the waterways in some way, right?

Granted, the law does include:
Quote:(2) PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION- Nothing in this subtitle permits the use of funds made available to carry out this subtitle to acquire real property or a real property interest without the written consent of each owner of the real property or real property interest.

But how easily can this be forced. When the TLAs are knocking on your door in full kit, who are you to say "no". [/tinfoilhat]
Reply
#4
Stealing private property because of water ways is nothing new. My great grandmother lost her land after digging a pond on her property and some rare frog moved in. Feds kicked her out saying it was a protected wetland despite it being just a hole she dug in her yard.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply
#5
Warpt762x39;45280 Wrote:Stealing private property because of water ways is nothing new. My great grandmother lost her land after digging a pond on her property and some rare frog moved in. Feds kicked her out saying it was a protected wetland despite it being just a hole she dug in her yard.

I do not support any legislation that protects any creature that would be considered a nuisance animal if it wasn't rare. Frogs, bats, birds, etc.

Im no evolutionist, but it Boggles the mind that many want to prevent the disappearance of a creature that nature is ready to be rid of.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#6
Camper;45294 Wrote:Im no evolutionist, but it Boggles the mind that many want to prevent the disappearance of a creature that nature is ready to be rid of.

I tend to agree. If a species is dying off, well, it is probably it's time to go.

I think the only caveat to this would be if humans caused the sparse population and it would not have happened without our interference. I think only in this case does it make sense for us - as humans - to try to preserve what we destroyed.
Reply
#7
rmagill;45298 Wrote:
Camper;45294 Wrote:Im no evolutionist, but it Boggles the mind that many want to prevent the disappearance of a creature that nature is ready to be rid of.

I tend to agree. If a species is dying off, well, it is probably it's time to go.

I think the only caveat to this would be if humans caused the sparse population and it would not have happened without our interference. I think only in this case does it make sense for us - as humans - to try to preserve what we destroyed.

I do not think the T Rex worried about displacing some rare cricket from the environment, or took caution not to eliminate some rare fauna.

Point being, that if man is a normal part of nature, than anything man does to affect the wildlife is natural.

That is not to say that we should deliberatley abuse the environment, but IMHO deliberately trying to shape it into what we think nature wants it to be can be just as dangerous as deliberately trying to destroy it.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#8
Camper;45304 Wrote:
rmagill;45298 Wrote:I tend to agree. If a species is dying off, well, it is probably it's time to go.

I think the only caveat to this would be if humans caused the sparse population and it would not have happened without our interference. I think only in this case does it make sense for us - as humans - to try to preserve what we destroyed.

I do not think the T Rex worried about displacing some rare cricket from the environment, or took caution not to eliminate some rare fauna.

Point being, that if man is a normal part of nature, than anything man does to affect the wildlife is natural.

That is not to say that we should deliberatley abuse the environment, but IMHO deliberately trying to shape it into what we think nature wants it to be can be just as dangerous as deliberately trying to destroy it.


Yep. And look where that got him. AngelTongue

Seriously, though, you do make a good point. I do agree that we can - in a positive way - play a role in the natural removing of species. However, I also believe we can unnaturally hasten the demise of a species. It is this unnatural demise that I think should guarded against... within moderation. (I.e. don't cut down the entire rain forest, but if we need the wood, take some in moderation. If the last rare frog hops in front of a car and we flatten it, oh well.)
Reply
#9
Camper;45304 Wrote:
rmagill;45298 Wrote:I tend to agree. If a species is dying off, well, it is probably it's time to go.

I think the only caveat to this would be if humans caused the sparse population and it would not have happened without our interference. I think only in this case does it make sense for us - as humans - to try to preserve what we destroyed.

I do not think the T Rex worried about displacing some rare cricket from the environment, or took caution not to eliminate some rare fauna.

Point being, that if man is a normal part of nature, than anything man does to affect the wildlife is natural.

That is not to say that we should deliberatley abuse the environment, but IMHO deliberately trying to shape it into what we think nature wants it to be can be just as dangerous as deliberately trying to destroy it.

You make a very good point. I hold a different belief but you have definitly given me something to think about.
You have a right to protect yourself and a duty to protect your family.
Reply
#10
Camper;45294 Wrote:
Warpt762x39;45280 Wrote:Stealing private property because of water ways is nothing new. My great grandmother lost her land after digging a pond on her property and some rare frog moved in. Feds kicked her out saying it was a protected wetland despite it being just a hole she dug in her yard.

I do not support any legislation that protects any creature that would be considered a nuisance animal if it wasn't rare. Frogs, bats, birds, etc.

Im no evolutionist, but it Boggles the mind that many want to prevent the disappearance of a creature that nature is ready to be rid of.

A creature that nature is selecting against, or one that humans are either intentionally or accidentally getting rid of?

By your reasoning DDT should still be allowed and we would have no bald eagles.
A gun rack in a pick-up is not for holding guns. Its a place for women to hold on to. Smile
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  ban the use of traditional, lead-based ammunition on Federal lands Dannytheman 2 544 01-20-2017, 04:04 PM
Last Post: Dannytheman
  Stop Pat Toomey’s Assault on Gun Owners - march on offices longcall911 18 5,492 09-16-2015, 06:29 PM
Last Post: longcall911
  NC National Guard carry bill passes. Rosco the Iroc 1 671 08-24-2015, 10:02 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  Democrats Introduce National Mandatory Firearms Insurance Bill bigdawgbeav 5 888 05-29-2015, 08:14 PM
Last Post: spblademaker
  Dem bill targets online ammo sales das 7 1,499 05-16-2015, 01:10 AM
Last Post: ArcticSplash



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.